I gather Tony Bloom's horse hosed up in the Cesarewitch, landing a hefty gamble. If Messrs Camel & Channing were not both on that, I'll eat my hat. He purchased the winner over a year ago, put it away, had one prep race & then hacked up. MBN.

Such complacency from Chris Grayling on Marr. "Britain will succeed come what may", with no supporting argument, flying in the face of all the evidence unfolding all around us.

With no deal, "we'll grow more here". Yep, because it would too expensive to import the food and other goods that we do now. He seems not to care (or not to see?) that we would slip from being one of the richer countries in Europe to at least mid-tier, if not worse. Our money is already worth a lot less than before the vote - it'll be worth even less if this numbskull's views hold sway.

Lewis only had two DNF's last season, which was very, very good when compared with everyone else.

apart from Nico...

7/1 isn't even a great price on either of the Mercedes to retire. Betting on something because it hasn't happened for a while seems like wonky thinking.

Indeed. Nico had one. Ricciardo actually finished every race, and Perez classified in every race.

Not sure I entirely agree, law of averages suggests every car will have at least one mechanical failure during the season. I think I would always be happy to take 7/1 at this stage of the season on a car which has yet to suffer retirement. Happy to be convinced otherwise though, as I'm not 100% confident in my logic there.

Depending on context or application it can be considered a valid common-sense observation or a misunderstanding of probability. This notion can lead to fallacious thinking when one becomes convinced that a particular outcome must come soon simply because it has not occurred recently

At the start of the season, you can look at all the stats and decide Lewis is going to retire one race in ten (or whatever it is), so the odds on a retirement is 9/1. If he doesn't retire in the first 9 races, that doesn't mean he is "due one" in the next race. The odds are still going to be 9/1. If anything, you could learn that maybe the Mercedes has got even more reliable than you thought, and that 9/1 is now too short. There are always going to be occasions where retirement is more likely; like if the track is attritional, like Monaco; or the weather is really hot; or maybe the engine is reaching the end of its expected lifespan, but none of those will be because he is "due one".

I would say that the law of averages is right up there with "Momentum" as a bad reason to make a bet. Will leave the momentum one to Camel, I can't hear that word in a commentary without thinking of The Camel these days.

I understand the principle of the law of averages, and I can't directly argue with anything you've said. However, I think you've completely skimmed over a key component, cumulative effect. This isn't red/black roulette scenario because car components (at least the ones that are carry over) degrade over time which directly increases the chance of a failure at the next race. Of course I don't know Mercedes' component rotation, but I could take an educated guess, and I would be certain that many components have been on that car since the season began. It's worth noting that the component reconditioning process only happens following a shunt or reliability issue due to logistics.

Perhaps another much simpler way of looking at it is that if you look back through history, it's fairly rare for a driver to go a whole season without a retirement during a circa 20 race season. The last five times this happened was:

Although, you could make the argument that reliability on the whole is consistently improving as time passes and technology develops, so who knows. I still feel like 7/1 was value though.

Based on your synopsis, I understand your point, but I think it is more of a value spot to continue backing until it drops, as long as you suspect it will continue to be 7-1 or greater for the remaining races?

Vick shown a lot of improvement last few days, Fred and Evie been at their dads since 9am Saturday and she's spent A load of time bonding with Percy and letting me lounge about watching racing and footy. Her bloody scar fromthe c-section has a few tiny holes that have opened and she's back on anti-biotics for that which is a pain, but very happy withher progress this weekend. As for Wednesday 😡 Carlos has to go now

Lewis only had two DNF's last season, which was very, very good when compared with everyone else.

apart from Nico...

7/1 isn't even a great price on either of the Mercedes to retire. Betting on something because it hasn't happened for a while seems like wonky thinking.

Indeed. Nico had one. Ricciardo actually finished every race, and Perez classified in every race.

Not sure I entirely agree, law of averages suggests every car will have at least one mechanical failure during the season. I think I would always be happy to take 7/1 at this stage of the season on a car which has yet to suffer retirement. Happy to be convinced otherwise though, as I'm not 100% confident in my logic there.

Depending on context or application it can be considered a valid common-sense observation or a misunderstanding of probability. This notion can lead to fallacious thinking when one becomes convinced that a particular outcome must come soon simply because it has not occurred recently

At the start of the season, you can look at all the stats and decide Lewis is going to retire one race in ten (or whatever it is), so the odds on a retirement is 9/1. If he doesn't retire in the first 9 races, that doesn't mean he is "due one" in the next race. The odds are still going to be 9/1. If anything, you could learn that maybe the Mercedes has got even more reliable than you thought, and that 9/1 is now too short. There are always going to be occasions where retirement is more likely; like if the track is attritional, like Monaco; or the weather is really hot; or maybe the engine is reaching the end of its expected lifespan, but none of those will be because he is "due one".

I would say that the law of averages is right up there with "Momentum" as a bad reason to make a bet. Will leave the momentum one to Camel, I can't hear that word in a commentary without thinking of The Camel these days.

I understand the principle of the law of averages, and I can't directly argue with anything you've said. However, I think you've completely skimmed over a key component, cumulative effect. This isn't red/black roulette scenario because car components (at least the ones that are carry over) degrade over time which directly increases the chance of a failure at the next race. Of course I don't know Mercedes' component rotation, but I could take an educated guess, and I would be certain that many components have been on that car since the season began. It's worth noting that the component reconditioning process only happens following a shunt or reliability issue due to logistics.

Perhaps another much simpler way of looking at it is that if you look back through history, it's fairly rare for a driver to go a whole season without a retirement during a circa 20 race season. The last five times this happened was: